Value of: Alex Tuch

[Seanaconda]

I've always found Tuch a better than average skater for his size. Combined with what else he brings to the table I disagree with most of your post. And yes, bargain contract.

Not sure where you are getting this "big guy get hurt" notion. Jagr, Thornton, Staal, and many others disagree.

like im pretty sure thornton is mostly made of robot parts atm

 

[Seanaconda]

Yeah, but there are different kind of fast. I don’t know who I bet on in a race around the rink, Jason Chimera or Pat Kane. But one certainly plays the game a lot faster than the other.

like the terms would be acceleration and quickness. maybe edges vs top end / straight line speed.

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

A Tuch too much?

One thing's for sure--it's more than a feeling.

 

[Muffinalt]

I suggested VGK trade Tuch in another thread & I agree with your reasoning, going for it now, he'd be a great trade chip for a good #3D ? or maybe a low end #2D? +/- to even it out. D is the only true "hole" in their lineup & come playoff time it'll get exposed even more.

Tuch for Gustafsson? Not sure if I'd do it as a Hawks fan, but I'm guessing that's fair value?

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Tuch for Gustafsson? Not sure if I'd do it as a Hawks fan, but I'm guessing that's fair value?

As a Red Wings fan, I'm neutral on this one. I'm not sure what Gustafsson is asking for in UFA, but the Hawks need D as badly as VGK, probably even more so. DeHaan & Maatta were decent adds, but there's not much beyond that except an aging/declining Keith. I doubt VGK does it without Gus being extended 1st, then yeah it's probably close in value is my guess.

 

[HanSolo]

Yeah, but there are different kind of fast. I don’t know who I bet on in a race around the rink, Jason Chimera or Pat Kane. But one certainly plays the game a lot faster than the other.

I'd bet on Tuch over anyone not named Shea Theodore and Jonathan Marchesseault

 

[Ctrain2k]

Sam Girard from Colorado could make sense next year when Byram’s ready.

 

[hangman005]

I'd bet on Tuch over anyone not named Shea Theodore and Jonathan Marchesseault

Come on you know you wanted to say Deryk Engelland

From a hypothetical point, I'd see us trading him for a D, from a realistic stand point, he's not going anywhere.

 

[avsfan09]

All PFs seem to miss their fair share of games...

I was looking back at Buttons top prospects outside the NHL ranking over a few years. It’s really striking how high everyone always are about the big guys with size, then like in the mid 20s comes someone like Mat Barzal. Not because anyone think he is a worse player than those with “great” size, no just because it’s seen as such an amazing advantage to be big. Guys like Joel Eriksson-Ek is so high, the Barzal types are low.

I just don’t think that is reflective at all of what really pays of in this league right now. It seems like so often when someone does really really well, it’s the 5’11 give or take forward. JMHO.

Barkov, Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kopitar ect disagree. Size is still an advantage. It helps with puck protection and buys time and space.

 

[avsfan09]

Sam Girard from Colorado could make sense next year when Byram’s ready.

Girard might be our best d this year and his contract is amazing imo. He’s untradeable unless it’s an overpayment.

 

[Ola]

Barkov, Rantanen, Draisaitl, Kopitar ect disagree. Size is still an advantage. It helps with puck protection and buys time and space.

Due to the law of physics you need to be exponentially stronger the bigger you get. Smaller guys are hence quicker and can change directions more effectively, everything else equal.

Do you imply that these guys wouldn’t be as good as if they where 3 inches shorter?? Would love to hear some arguments to support a claim like that.

It’s like 3 decades ago when Ds where allowed to defend with just about any action, someone like Fleury could still do well. That doesn’t mean that Fleury wouldn’t have been better if he was bigger.

I think all the guys you mention would be quicker and faster if they where shorter, and hence would be pretty deadly offensive forces. Size are of course still important for Ds and pure PFs. For the other forwards? To be honest, I think it’s hard to find arguments for it. Just look around the league. It’s hard to spot any trends indicating that bigger guys more often does well than smaller guys.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Come on you know you wanted to say Deryk Engelland

From a hypothetical point, I'd see us trading him for a D, from a realistic stand point, he's not going anywhere.

How would Ristolainen line up for you value-wise? Would probably need retention on him or some extra cap going to Buffalo to make it work, but just as a basis.

 

[Pia8988]

How would Ristolainen line up for you value-wise? Would probably need retention on him or some extra cap going to Buffalo to make it work, but just as a basis.

I wouldn’t trade Tuch for Ristolainen

 

[avsfan09]

Due to the law of physics you need to be exponentially stronger the bigger you get. Smaller guys are hence quicker and can change directions more effectively, everything else equal.

Do you imply that these guys wouldn’t be as good as if they where 3 inches shorter?? Would love to hear some arguments to support a claim like that.

It’s like 3 decades ago when Ds where allowed to defend with just about any action, someone like Fleury could still do well. That doesn’t mean that Fleury wouldn’t have been better if he was bigger.

I think all the guys you mention would be quicker and faster if they where shorter, and hence would be pretty deadly offensive forces. Size are of course still important for Ds and pure PFs. For the other forwards? To be honest, I think it’s hard to find arguments for it. Just look around the league. It’s hard to spot any trends indicating that bigger guys more often does well than smaller guys.

I’m fairly tall and I’d argue that you’re underestimating how much reach and wingspan can be an advantage. Corner and board work is easier when you can move the puck to safe areas quickly and still have it in your possession.

 

[leeroggy]

Scott Mayfield, Mitch Vande Sompel and our 2020 2nd for him. You get an NHLer RHD with size on a great contract who already is getting Top 4 minutes, one of our best D prospects and a nice pick. You can take Dal Colle or Ho-Sang if you'd like for free.

 

[typicalsavage]

How would Ristolainen line up for you value-wise? Would probably need retention on him or some extra cap going to Buffalo to make it work, but just as a basis.

Your not getting Tuch for Ristolainen. You’d be lucky to get Cody Eakin for him.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Your not getting Tuch for Ristolainen. You’d be lucky to get Cody Eakin for him.

You know, your schtick is getting really boring for everyone but you.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

If I was Vegas I’d need a young stud top4D back...Morrissey, Sergachev, Werenski. That kind of player

 

[CupInSIX]

You know, your schtick is getting really boring for everyone but you.

He's not wrong (and Eakin won't be moved for Risto either)

 

[tsujimoto74]

He's not wrong (and Eakin won't be moved for Risto either)

Not sure if drastically overrating your pending UFA 3rd liner or drastically underrating our top 4 defenseman.

 

[Roasted Nuts]

Due to the law of physics you need to be exponentially stronger the bigger you get. Smaller guys are hence quicker and can change directions more effectively, everything else equal.

I don't agree with the above statement. I don't see how guys would need to be stronger the bigger they get, especially in a game like hockey where you're carrying your mass on skates. Being ten pounds heavier for each inch gained in height isn't a huge difference by the way. If you checked the prospect combine, you'll notice that size isn't a big factor in a the strength test. Both big and little guys will show up in the top ten for strength test.

 

[93LEAFS]

I don't agree with the above statement. I don't see how guys would need to be stronger the bigger they get, especially in a game like hockey where you're carrying your mass on skates. Being ten pounds heavier for each inch gained in height isn't a huge difference by the way. If you checked the prospect combine, you'll notice that size isn't a big factor in a the strength test. Both big and little guys will show up in the top ten for strength test.

The combine gives you different weights depending on your weight grouping. They all get between 70-80% of their body weight. And, the only other pure-strength test is chin-ups, which is also affected by body weight. For example, Matthews in 2016 had to bench-press 175, whereas Laine in 2016 had to bench-press 160.

 

[TaLoN]

Is there a world where Vegas considers trading Tuch? With how amazing their top two lines are maybe trading him could be option to solidify an area of need or ease the cap situation?

I understand he's on an amazing contract and an awesome asset to have on the 3rd line, but Im interested in his hypothetical value. He would be such an incredible fit next to Toews here in Chicago, but all we could offer are picks and prospects.

Is he completely off the table or could the right trade be found?

He's worth a 3rd round pick in exchange for Haula being taken in the expansion draft.

 

[mm11]

would a Leddy plus move the needle? Possibly Ryan Pulock straight up? Whenever I see Tuch play I'm impressed. Can the kid snipe? Barzal needs some more speed and skill on his line.

 

[Ola]

I don't agree with the above statement. I don't see how guys would need to be stronger the bigger they get, especially in a game like hockey where you're carrying your mass on skates. Being ten pounds heavier for each inch gained in height isn't a huge difference by the way. If you checked the prospect combine, you'll notice that size isn't a big factor in a the strength test. Both big and little guys will show up in the top ten for strength test.

I can understand that it can be a bit hard to understand, but its definitely a fact. Have you ever seen a 6'6 hockey player just in general move like a 5'10 player? I've watched hockey for over 30 years and never seen it. The movement pattern is just different. We will never see a 6'8 forward that moves like Sean Dooghe. There is a reason for it, and its basically simple fundamental physics.

The bigger you get, your weight increase exponentially. A human being isn't built as a sphere, but to illustrate the fundamentals behind the physics, the volume of a sphere with the radius 1 is 4,19, and the volume of a sphere with the radius 2 is 33.51.

As a result, the bigger you get, to move your own body, you must proportionally be stronger.

On the flip side, the bigger you are, the harder to move you will be. You are heavier. You will get pure force behind hits. Everything you do basically. But in relation to your own body, you will be weaker.

Hockey isn't a very stereotypical game. There are and have always been room in the game for different type of players, and that will of course also always be the case going forward. But in general, I think its hard to come to the conclusion that the average forward would benefit from being 6'3 instead of 6'0.